1

Laban-Aristotle: Zώον (Zoon) in Theatre Πράξις (Praxis);

Towards a Methodology for Movement Training for the Actor and in Acting

Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of Royal Central School of Speech and Drama and University of London, for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

March 2013

By

Vasiliki Selioni

2

3

Contents

Lists of tables………………………………………………………………………...3

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………..6

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………….7

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………….8

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..9

1. Chapter one: Introduction...............................................................................12

1.1 The Roots of the Problem and the Case for New Knowledge……………….15

1.2 The Concept of Mimesis in Philosophy...........................................................26

1.2.1 Plato...............................................................................................................28

1.2.2 Aristotle..........................................................................................................31

1.2.3 Post-Aristotelian Approaches to Mimesis.......................................................35

1.2.4 Ramfos Stelios: Mimesis versus Imitation and Representation......................37

2. Chapter Two: Aristotle-Laban: the Links. Introduction.....................................41

2.1 Mimesis: The Creation of a World per se...........................................................42

2.2 The Art as Science-The Poetic Science-Logic in Art...........................................47

2.3 The Intentionality of Art – Demiourgos and Prothesis......................................55

2.4 The Notion of Indestructible Dynamics in Relation to the Notion of Presence

and Corporeality (Kinaesthetic Experience and ζώον).........................................60

4

3. Chapter Three: Overview of the Tradition of Laban Movement for Actors

Introduction.............................................................................................................70

3.1 Laban: The Mastery of Movement on the Stage...................................................71

3.2 Laban’s Legacy in Actor’s Movement Training: The Next Generation...............80

3.3 Contemporary Approaches: Brigid Panet-Barbara Andrian...............................94

3.4 Towards a New Laban Methodology in Teaching Movement to Actors………103

4. Chapter Four: Proposed Methodology Introduction.............................................106

4.1 The Ground of Methodology……………………………………………………...111

4.2 The Units of Actions: The Analysis of the Units of Actions and their Significance

in Acting.................................................................................................................120

4.3 Fundamental Exercises in Units of Actions………………………………………124

4.4 Effort /Eukinetics: The Actor’s Kinesthetic Awareness and his Presence on Stage

Ζώον (Zoon) and Embodiment……………....……………………………………128

4.5 Space as Cube…………………………...………………………………………….136

4.6 Space exercises…………………..……………………………………………….…137

4.7 Relationships…………………………………………………………………….....138

4.8 Exercises in Relationships………..…………………………………………..……139

4.9 Main Principles in Combining Movement and Textual (Speech) Content

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….141

4.10 Exercises………………………………………………………………………….143

4.11 Summary…..………………………………..……………………………………149

5

5. Chapter Five: Conclusion………...………………………………………………..149

5.1 Student Responses………………....………………………………………………149

5.2 Praxis Outcomes – An Integrated Body and Mind for the Actor……………...152

5.3 Aristotelian Laban Practice and its Relation to the Field of Movement for

Actors...........………………………………………………………………………...157

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………...163

Graphs: 1. page 129

2. page 130

Figures: 1. pp116

2. pp145

3-4. pp146

5. pp 147

6. pp148

7. pp149

APPENDIX

DVD

6

Acknowledgements

This thesis has succeeded because of the great individual, Stelios Ramfos, who gave me the

key to the reading in Aristotle in order to support my research.

I am grateful to my first supervisor Tony Fisher for his continual guidance and support in

completing this thesis. Special thanks go to my second supervisor Dr Jane Munro. I owe a

great deal to my third supervisor Dr Katia Savrami for her enthusiastic encouragement and

continued support during my research. I am particularly grateful to my initial supervisor

Professor Ana Sanchez-Colberg and to the Honorary Doctorate Costas Georgousopoulos

during the first year of my research for their support and clear advices. Special thanks to

professor Robin Nelson for his helpful advice in my research. Very special thanks to all my

students for their invaluable help during all the period of my research. A special expression

of appreciation goes to all my collaborators and colleagues in Drama schools who supported

me during the period of my thesis. I am particularly grateful to my collaborators in this

research Antonis Galeos, Athanasia Triantafyllou, Serafeim Arkomanis, Eudokia

Veropoulou, Dionysis Tsaftaridis, Thodoris Vournas, Eugenia Papageorgiou, Stela Anton,

Alexandros Psychramis, Arguro Tsirita. I would like to thank all my friends for their

continuous love and constant support, Andreas Peristeris, Irini Morava, Lida Manousaki,

Vaso Panagiotakopoulou, Andreas Peridis, Michael Seibel, Vasilis Nikolaidis, Maria

Ntotsika, Panos Panagiotou, Xristina Theodoropoulou, Barbara Douka, Giorgos

Thalassinos, Lampros Vlachos, Akis Vloutis, Nikos Anagnostopoulos, Katerina Berdeka.

7

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my parents

Michalis and Aliki Selioni

8

Abstract

The focus of this research rests on an investigation into the links between Laban and

Aristotle with the view to propose a new approach to movement training for the actor. I will

argue that in contrast to the standard Platonic reading, Laban’s development is best

understood through the conceptual framework of Aristotle. This provides not only a more

secure theoretical approach, but also a practical one, which establishes the art of movement

as a science. In short this investigation intends to establish Laban’s philosophical

foundation upon a reading of Aristotle’s Poetics and, in particular, on the reading of the

Poetics by the contemporary Greek philosopher Stelios Ramfos in his book Μίμησις

Εναντίον Μορφής (Mimesis versus Form) (1991-1992). What is significant about Stelios

Ramfos’s interpretation is that he attempts an analysis and interpretation of the concepts of

the Poetics in terms of theatre performance. Ιt is this emphasis on performance that make

possible the task I have embarked upon of locating Laban’s theory and practice in the

conceptual framework of Aristotelian poetic science. The discussion will serve as a critical

framework from which to propose a new way of applying Laban’s movement concepts

practically to the movement training for actors. The research methodology is also practical.

It will therefore also develop and present a performance that attempts to apply Laban’s

terms, as they are discussed, in relation to Aristotle, and (in Chapter 4) in relation to the

new methodology as well as a syllabus of practical classes addressing actor movement

training both in kinesthesia and characterization. The ultimate goal of the research is to

contribute an approach that can inform the way Laban’s concepts are taught and provide

suggestions for the structuring of technical movement classes for actors.

9

Introduction

The application of Laban’s method in actor training has a long history that extends beyond

his work in dance and it is in on this area that the research is focussed. Although Laban

himself applied his method to the training of actors, it was left mainly to his followers to

develop, often erratically – or such is the proposal of this thesis – Laban’s insights.

Practitioners such as Jean Newlove, Yat Malmgren, Geraldine Stephenson, Brigit Panet and

so on have all continued to develop his work - each have offered movement classes for

actors based on Laban’s principles. Each of these individuals has developed a specific

method for actors based upon Laban’s principles. It is worthy of note that these methods do

not differ essentially from one another, and it is significant that all of them agree in

principle that the philosophical foundation of Laban’s theory and practice is to be

interpreted according to platonic precepts. In this PhD, I argue that it is this Platonic

foundation that underscores each of the above practitioners own development and

notwithstanding differences between them, it is Platonism that unifies all according to a

common philosophical approach.

This Platonic interpretation originates with Laban’s Rosicrucian period when Laban

explored the directions of the human body in terms of the Platonic icosahedron1. It was an

investigation that brought the art of dancing to a new era by breaking with the stability of

the dancer and instead introducing the concept of lability or instability. In this way Laban

replaced the two dimensional conception of the space in dance by a ‘Platonic’ icosaedrical

perspective. Until this point the dancer was located in a cube and his directions were limited

to front/behind, up/down, left/right. Laban’s icosaedron opens up new possibilities in

movement because it expands the boundaries of the body’s directions employing the full

dimensions of space. This innovation led Laban to be celebrated in the field of dance as the

father of the contemporary dance. The platonic influence on Laban’s theory and practice

was explicitly established in Curl’s Philosophical Foundations originally written as a series

of articles in 1966-1967 published in Laban Αrt of Μovement Guild Magazine. In these

1 Plato in Timaeus states that the creation of cosmos is based on five solids; each of them represents the elements of nature: cube for earth, tetrahedron for fire, octahedron for air, dodecahedron for cosmos as a whole, and icosahedrons for water. See also Newlove’s book Laban for All where she is referring to Laban and his connection with platonic ideas.

10

articles, the relation between Laban and his followers, and their pursuit of a philosophical

foundation was discussed. Ullmann, Laban’s principal collaborator during the last period of

his life, explains: ‘serious study of this kind requires a philosophical foundation’ (Ullmann

as cited in Curl 1966: 7). Moreover, two other factors would dramatically influence the

descendants of Laban in developing teaching movement for actors: Laban’s background in

expressionist ideas and the connection of his theory and practice to the work of

Stanislavsky. Later the present research will discuss how these factors influenced their

teaching methods in ways that may be considered to be working against Laban’s aims.

The research is divided as follows:

Chapter one examines the ‘roots of the problem’, identifying the location of the research

within current issues regarding movement for actors, particularly those stemming from the

‘Laban heritage’. In order to examine the main problems in this heritage, the first chapter

concentrates on readings of Laban that rely on a platonic philosophical foundation, the

expressionistic tones of his work and the connection with Stanislavsky’s method of acting.

Since it requires a reevaluation of the philosophical foundations of such approaches, the

chapter will also focus on mimesis in philosophy from Plato, Aristotle, and Post-Aristotelian

approaches, in an attempt to redefine the philosophical foundations underlying Laban’s

work. With regards to the concept of mimesis I adopt and adapt Stelios Ramfos’ approach.

One significant intervention here is the way Ramfos introduced an explanation of the notion

of mimesis as a vital presentation (ζώον) rather than as is standard in translations of the

notion representation. The chapter uses Ramfos’ argument, then, as a framework in which

to locate the comparative analysis between Laban and Aristotle.

Chapter two proposes four important links between Aristotle and Laban and establishes a

new philosophical background against which Laban’s movement principles can be

understood. This will then serve as a theoretical framework for my own practice insofar as

it seeks to renew the methodological grounds of Laban-based movement training for actors.

The research proposes that the links between Laban and Aristotle are stronger than those

between Laban and Plato as it has been conventionally assumed. This review of Laban’s

philosophical foundations has a direct impact on the re-evaluation of Laban’s theory-

practice. The four links I will examine are the Aristotelian principles or concepts that bear a

direct relation to Laban which will help to redefine our understanding of mimesis: (1) The

creation of a world per se (ένας κόσμος αυτός καθ’αυτός), (2) Art as Science-The Poetic

11

science, (3) Artist as Demiourgos 2, and (4) The notion of indestructible time-indestructible

dynamics in relation to the notion of presence and corporeality (kinesthetic experience and

zώον). Chapter three pursues this line of thought by critiquing the work of the main

practitioners who have continued the legacy of Laban’s principles in the training of

movement for actors, and the way in which they connect Laban’s approach to

Stanislavsky’s method of acting. Reference is made to more recent contemporary

approaches in teaching movement for actors influenced by Laban principles in order to

show to what extent they have also based their work on the connection between Laban and

Stanislavsky. In Chapter four a new practical methodology that is underpinned by this new

revised theoretical approach to Laban is introduced for the movement training of actors;

including a series of exercises on a DVD, intended to meet the requirements of the

contemporary movement training of actors. Finally, the last chapter five seeks to critically

reflect on my methodological recommendations and evaluate the principal claims of the

thesis in light of my practical experiments in the studio.

2 Creator. A notion discussed in Plato’s Timaeus.

12

Chapter One

Introduction

The focus of this research is the theoretical and practical enquiry into the proposition that

there is a strong link between Laban’s theory of movement and Aristotle’s Poetics.

Specifically, it proposes that Laban’s analysis of human movement is inextricably related to

Aristotle’s concept of mimesis conceived as a zώον (living organism). Until now the

discussion of Laban’s philosophical foundations has concentrated on the supposition of a

Platonic influence (Curl 1966: 7-15). Rather, this study suggests that Laban’s concepts are

more in tune with the Aristotelian concept of zoon (ζώον). I will use this argument to

underpin the proposal of a new methodology for the teaching of movement for actors.

Moreover, the research will argue that contrary to conventional approaches that align

Laban’s concepts to Stanislavski (e.g. Newlove (1993), Mirodan (1997) and Mildenderg

(2009)), these concepts are in fact in direct opposition to Stanislavski, both in terms of their

aesthetic/philosophical and practical approach, and in their attitude towards psychological

implications concerning character development. Furthermore, the critical analysis of Laban

and Aristotle will serve as a framework to support the proposal of a new series of classes,

based on Laban’s theory and practice. Bearing in mind constantly that Aristotelian mimesis

is to be understood in the sense of the notion of zoon (ζώον) – life – and that only on this

basis can it be used in relation to the training of the actor’s body for the art of the theatre.

Moreover, the classes will be constructed on a framework that seeks to address both

theoretical and practical issues in terms of scientific methodological demands. In other

words the structure of the classes should follow a logical order, as Aristotle suggests when

he talks about science (first principles, middle terms etc); that is, the methodological basis

of proceeding from the first simple action to a more complex one.

This investigation therefore intends to establish Laban’s philosophical foundation upon

Aristotle’s philosophy and mainly as it is developed in his famous treatise on theatre – the

Poetics. The research will re-examine the conceptual basis of their mutual philosophical

systems in order to establish similarities between Aristotle’s and Laban’s understanding of

human praxis (in theatre). Significantly, the research will propose that they share a common

understanding of the role of the performer’s kinesthetic experience in theatre and that this

experience is to be understood as possessing no psychological implications. The research

13

will discuss how, for both Laban and Aristotle, the process of art-making is one of

intentionally creating a world per se. Namely, the creation of a new poetic reality, which

does not exist in this world. This idea is the foundation for their understanding of mimesis

which is based on a process of poetic science – the aim of which is for the performer to live

in a constant presence on the stage. In other words, the performer is able to be constantly

attentive to her/his body’s ever changing rhythms, in present time, and thus is able, during

the performance, to continually experience what we might call, following Aristotle, an

aesthetic time and not merely a physical sense of time. This presupposes a well-trained body

– that the performer works under the condition that his or her training develops bodily

awareness both in movement and in voice and addresses, holistically, the needs of the

dramatic art. In cases where the performer lacks that ability his/her presentation stands as a

schematic presence that reveals its inartistic character. Aristotle calls this constant presence

zoon (greek ζώον = living thing), whereas Laban defines it as kinesthetic experience. By

relating these two concepts I propose to show how close Laban’s conceptual framework is

to that of Aristotle’s. Moreover, by connecting Aristotle and Laban the research provides

the opportunity to elaborate not only a theoretical approach, but also a practical one,

establishing the art of movement as science. Laban’s descendants have often been dismissed

the idea of a scientific approach in movement, as they have emphasized first and foremost

the emotional and expressionistic character of the method, whereas science focuses on

logical elaboration and a conscious intention, developed through the structure of a

character.

In order to suggest a new theoretical and practical training for actors the research

incorporates Stelios Ramfos’s theoretical approach to Aristotelian mimesis as ζώον (living

thing). According to Ramfos in mimesis as zoon (ζώον) the actor lives in a state of constant

presence on the stage, but also – that the ‘aesthetic’ the beauty of ζώον lies in the logical

development of the actions such that they constitute a unity, that is to say, the unity of one

praxis (action). Ramfos argues3:

Time in the case of the work of art and its pleasure is all in its duration, from the beginning to the end and not some moments that require the participation of the spectator’s soul…indeed the poetic synkinisis (affect) is not produced by the assembling of the external parts of the work of art, but is extracted from its

3 All translations from the original Greek text to English by author

14

existential perfection, namely its function as the energy of a living whole (Ramfos 1991: 201).

Insofar as it accomplishes this, the body lives the time as a constant Nun (now)

transforming abstract physical time into the indestructible time of living presence. Actually,

the now has been transformed into aesthetic time ‘free from every day world of our

sufferance and gaieties’ (Laban 1950: 5). Laban recognizes that a body lives its effort

rhythms in a constant ‘now,’ pressing into a certain space and time, interrupting physical

time and replacing it with the experience and fullness of the somatic energy of the body.

Thus, there is a period of time that happens in physical time that becomes a moment of

Katharsis, since man sets aside external reality and lives the pleasure of his existence

through his/her or movement, i.e, he experiences time as embodied.

The research will establish links between indestructible time and Laban’s approach to

movement as kinesthetic experience specifically in his Effort Theory. One problem that the

research aims to address is how this framework can propose a new way of applying Laban’s

movement concepts to the movement training for actors. Namely, the research establishes

that Laban proposes a way of “living on stage” not only in indestructible time, but by

introducing Effort. Aristotle introduces the notion of ζώον and its living time as the

cathartic duration of a unity, but actually in this way he also provides an ontological theory

for the text and its plot, as an organic unity. It is important to acknowledge that in

Aristotle’s time the semiotics of speech was understood in terms of rhythms that were

capable of transferring emotions; for this reason, Aristotle offered the principles of the

dramatic art directly at the level of speech. Aristotle with the notion of ζώον implies the

movement of the body, but on a second level – that of speech. Laban living in a different

period, in which words are symbols that when viewed on their own mean nothing, realizes

that the body is more capable to conveying meaning and thus presents vast nuances for the

contemporary theatre. Laban replaces the code of language rhythms with the body’s

movement rhythms (including voice), and like Aristotle steers the dramatic art away from

all psychological implications, during the training of the actors. In short, when developing

kinaesthetic awareness, actors do not need to identify with any character, nor do they need

to experience ‘emotions’. The exercises that this research proposes are constructed to give

attention to actions and their Effort qualities, to promote interaction between body and

mind.

15

On this basis, Laban offers a mode of training that could function as the support to every

method of acting, since he establishes a practical guide for a new poetic science: The Art

(and its Mastery) of the Movement on the Stage. In 1950 Laban stated that ‘the elements of

movement when arranged in sequences constitute rhythms’ (Laban 1950: 130) and from this

developed Eukinetics which is the study of dynamics of movement and rhythm. What

Laban calls effort are the visible movements of the human body, which are the result of its

inner attitude. His effort analysis ‘enables us to define our attitudes towards the factors of

movement (weight, space, time, flow) on the background of the general flux of movement

in proportional arrangements’ (Lange 1970: 5) Finally, this research can be seen as a

practical explication of the manner in which the Aristotelian ζώον moves, thereby

contributing to Aristotle’s ontological and poetic theory by developing a practical training

for the actor in the kinesthetic experience of ζώον. The result of this analysis will be

presented in chapter four in the form of a syllabus of practical classes addressing actors’

movement training. The ultimate goal of the research is to contribute a new approach that

can inform the way Laban’s concepts are taught and provide suggestions for the structuring

of technical movement classes for actors in an attempt to offer a complete methodology of

Laban theory and practice focusing exclusively on characterization and not on Laban

studies for dance.

1.1 The Roots of the Problem and the Case for New Knowledge

In 1966 Liza Ullmann argued for the necessity of establishing Laban’s philosophical

foundations as a means to understand his legacy:

At a time increasing demands are made on us for study in depth, it is indeed fortunate, that through Laban’s investigation, through his defining and propounding the area of movement, we have an enormous treasure of material and knowledge, upon which to base these studies. But, it must not be forgotten, that serious study of this kind requires a philosophical foundation (Ullmann cited in Curl 1966: 7)

Curl’s Philosophical Foundations, and Foster’s The Influences of Laban are a first attempt

at proposing links between Laban’s concepts and key aspects of Platonic and Pythagorean

philosophy. Curl, connects Laban with ‘Plato and mystic metaphysics’ (Foster, 1977: 166)

and through that connection he establishes Laban’s platonic philosophical foundation.

Foster locates the influences behind Laban’s concepts and undertakes an investigation into

16

the possible connection, not only with Plato and the Pythagoreans, which Curl had already

suggested, but also to every possible connection with other philosophers such as Fichte,

Nietzsche, Rousseau, Froebel, Aristotle, Heidegger, Kierkegaard, Hegel, Dewey and

Russell. Foster finally concludes that the link between Laban and Plato (or the

Pythagoreans) does not exist; for that matter, he is not suggesting a specific philosophical

approach, although he concedes that it is very clear from Laban’s words that there is a

connection with ancient Greek philosophy (Foster 1977: 39-69). Despite Foster’s findings,

Laban’s descendants persisted in pursuing the idea that Laban’s philosophical foundation

was based on Platonic philosophy. For instance, after Laban’s death, his close collaborators

and students (Ullmann, Newlove, Preston-Dunlop, Stephenson) connected Laban with

Plato, based on Laban’s research on the Platonic icosaedron as a perspective for man’s

personal space, which he calls kinesphere, during his Rosicrucian period4. It is also this

connection that led further researchers to base their teaching in practice on expressionistic

movement5 (See Evans, p. 33). Gordon (1975) describes the expressionistic movement as:

‘muscular posturing’, ‘intensity’, ‘huge and pathetic gestures’, ‘grotesque gestures’,

‘pauses’, ‘primitive expressiveness’, ‘overwhelming pressure in movement’ (Gordon 1975:

35-39). Moreover, in the application of Laban to the field of actor training, Laban’s

concepts were also connected with Stanislavsky’s method of acting (Newlove, Stephenson,

Malmgreen, Panet, Andrian). This connection started with Yat Malmgreen and Jean

Newlove, and continued with the new generation of their descendants like Barbara Andrian,

Brigit Panet, etc.

Key questions arise here: First, why is Laban connected with Platonic philosophy given that

for Plato art is a mirroring of the Ideal World and Laban states at the preface of his book

The Mastery of Movement on the Stage that the stage is a mirror of man’s physical, mental

and spiritual existence? Second, why did Laban in his two last books Modern Educational

Dance (1948), The Mastery of Movement on the Stage (1950) exclude the icosaedrical

perception of space and replace it with cube-based directions making no reference to his

early research? Is there not, in these omissions, a strong indication that he has moved away

4 Laban was member of Rosicrucian brethren at the beginning of 20th AD when he was studied at Écoles des Beaux Arts in Paris. Rosicrucians studied Hermes, Plato, Gurjieff, ancient Egyptian religious of Amon and Osiris, agnostic writings, Christian and Muslim texts (Preston-Dunlop 1998: 12).

5 When referring to expressionistic movement I am using the term to define the historical aesthetic of expressionism in theatre and dance commonly applied in writings such as Gordon (1975).

17

from his former platonic influence? As far as the later book, Choreutics, is concerned, it is

interesting to note that it refers mainly to Laban’s analysis of space in an icosaedrical

perspective, although it is this book that has provided until now the evidence of Laban’s

connection to Plato. It is essential to mention, in connection to this, that Ullmann herself

published the book in 1966, eight years after Laban’s death, naming Laban as its author.

Ullmann mentions in the preface that the book consists of his students’ manuscripts of notes

from Laban classes during his German period. Thirdly, if Laban’s philosophical foundation

rests on platonic philosophy, why do his descendants teach his method under

expressionism, given that Plato is generally considered to be a Formalist? Fourth and

finally, there is the question concerning the connection of Laban with Stanislavsky’s

method of acting: how can platonic philosophy be connected with Stanislavsky, since a

Platonic approach would appear to be antithetical to any psychological implication in

theatre?

In fact the research undertaken here takes its initiative from Laban’s own words in his last

original book, published in 1950 Mastery of Movement on Stage. Laban in the preface

explains that the logical explanation of movement it is not a mechanistic approach but an

understanding of the order of ‘ever-flowing change’ (Laban 1959: v) of movement, which is

a result of the inner life of human existence. According to Laban, ‘man moves in order to

satisfy a need’ (Laban 1950: 1) and the body’s movement is an analogue to his/her inner

life. It is precisely the recovery of the principles which underpin that analogy, which allow

the deep understanding of human movement in an attempt to apply them to the mastery of

movement on the stage. For Laban the stage is ‘the mirror of man’s physical, mental, and

spiritual life’ (Laban 1950: v) and ‘has nothing to do with the world of ideas’ (Laban 1950:

vi). This statement situates Laban firmly on Aristotelian ground and not on Platonic

territory recalling that the “big quarrel’ between Aristotle and Plato, about dramatic art is

that Plato believes that drama is a ‘mirror’ – however badly reflective – of the Ideal World’

whereas Aristotle believes that drama is a ‘mirror of everyday life’.

Laban in his book The Mastery of Movement on Stage makes a very interesting statement

when he closes its preface. He mentions and acknowledges his friends and pupils, during

his research period, and at the same time, he takes a curious distance from them:

This book embodies the practical studies and experience of a lifetime, but I could not have written it without close exchange of opinions with my friends and pupils…My thanks are therefore due to all those who have shared my work

18

on the stage and my researchers into the art of movement….But all those my coadjutors were present with me in thought as I wrote, and so I gratefully dedicate what I have written to all of them. In this guide to stage (and incidentally to factory) practice I have been obliged to work to my own special pattern. Why this was necessary, study of the text will disclose (Laban 1950: vi).

My suggestion is that with this statement Laban clearly dissociates himself from what his

collaborators and students believe about his theory and practice. Another important issue is

that in the original edition of the text Laban makes no reference to his research on the

Icosahedrical perspective of space and his analysis for space is restricted to Aristotle’s

approach on the issue of personal space, an issue that will be discussed later in this

research. Moreover, the same conception for space can also be noticed in his book Modern

Educational Dance in 1948, in which Laban included only the graph of the cube and

dynamoshere in his reference to space, something which, according to my analysis, strongly

indicates that Laban during his English period is shifting to a different approach.

The problem becomes more complicated when Laban’s method is connected with

Stanislavsky and his method of acting. This connection started when Laban’s collaborator

Bill Carpenter -who was interested in psychology- proposed to Laban to research the links

between the Four Motion Factors of Effort: Space, Weight, Time and Flow and Jung’s ideas

on psychological functions of Thinking, Sensing, Intuiting and Feeling. Laban continued

this research after Carpenter’s death with Yat Malmgreen. However, Laban stopped his

collaboration with Malmgreen, which lasted for only a short time. In fact, it was Malmgreen

who connected Laban analysis with the Stanislavsky method of acting (a further discussion

follows in chapter three). Laban himself never mentions anything on psychological

implications of acting in his last book; on the contrary he states:

All this has little to do with psychology as generally understood. The study of human striving reaches beyond psychological analysis. Performance in movement is a synthesis, culminating in the understanding of personality caught up in the ever-changing flow of movement (Laban 1950: 109).

Moreover, it is Ullmann who adds in the new revised edition at 1980 of Laban’s Mastery of

Movement on Stage, Stanislavsky’s questions Where, When, What and How, to Laban’s

Space, Time, Weight and Flow (See p. 115 of her revised edition). It is notable that Laban

starts his analysis by stating these four questions and giving their answers. Laban writes:

19

It is possible to determine and to describe any bodily action by answering four questions: (1) which part of the body moves? (2) How much time does the movement require? (3) What degree of muscular energy is spent on the movement? (4) In which direction of space is the movement exerted? (Laban 1950: 25).

He gives an example in answer to the above questions: it ‘is the right leg’, ‘the movement is

quick’, ‘strong’, and ‘is directing forward’. What is to be understood from these questions

and answers is that Laban is more interested in the functional approach to the body’s

experience and rather less interested in analyzing character in the manner advocated by

Stanislavsky. Ullmann retains the paragraph in which Laban himself in Mastery of

Movement on the Stage excludes Stanislavsky’s main concept of the ‘Magic if’ stating:

To perform movements “as if” chopping wood, or “as if” embracing or threatening someone, has little to do with the real symbolism of movement. Such imitations of everyday acts may be significant, but they are not symbolic (Laban 1950: 97).

Moreover, Laban continues referring to that kind of acting as “borrowing naturalism” which

creates an “imitation of life”, because according to him, it is only a description of single

movements, that conveys the ‘mood’ and the feelings in a superficial manner. For Laban,

symbolic actions are not mere ‘imitations’ or ‘representation’ of everyday life actions but

‘silent living movements’ in which actions are not the description of what we consider as

real life. For him, the observation of a man’s movements in everyday life reveals that there

is a poetic meaning in every day actions ‘pregnant with emotions’ which he calls movement

sentences or movement sequences that render them significant. Movement sentences have as

their main characteristic a specific order structured by an ‘unusual combination of

movement’ and through them convey a ‘coherent flow of movement’ (Laban 1950: 97-104).

Laban continues:

The question now arises whether any comprehensive order can be found in this emanation of silent world, and if so, whether this knowledge of orderly principles would be of advantage to the actor-dancer, and the general standard of dynamic art on the stage (Laban 1950: 98).

Taking into consideration Laban’s own words and statements my research not only re-

evaluates Laban’s philosophical foundation on Aristotle’s philosophical ground it thus shifts

his theory and practice away from Stanislavsky’s method of acting, to an attempt to

20

establish the art of the movement for actor training as an autonomous discipline, a method,

that I suggest is both teachable but also is capable of providing a supporting study for all the

theatre approaches and forms of acting including acting on screen.

In order to provide a new methodology for movement training in contemporary acting, the

research also takes also into consideration Mark Evans’ book Movement Training for the

Modern Actor (2009). Mark Evans comments that actors resist scientific understanding of

the body; a commonplace attitude among dancers and sports people (Evans 2009: 145).

The acquisitions of complex movement skills (which tend to be based on an instrumental or

mechanistic approach to the body) are seen to work against actors’ desire for their craft to

retain a certain degree of mystery and magic:

The body as instrument or machine (even in the temporary basis) removes it as a site for physical pleasure, mystery, magic and delight. Somehow actors seem to require that some aspect of their art remains ineffable, beyond the reach of conscious rational intellect. This begs the question: What is lost if the transformative process of the actor is made conscious, rational or formulaic? (Evans 2009: 145).

In offering a response to Evans, the research adopts an Aristotelian perspective and

proposes that knowledge, which is the main issue in both episteme (science) and art, is

gained through training, and that training requires a conscious and rational approach. It is

interesting to note that for Ramfos (2008) ‘Aristotelian knowledge is a complete existing

fact, not only an intellectual activity’; that is to say for him knowledge is always a dynamic

enquiry and not a stasis (fixed point) (Ramfos: 2008). It is connected with memory and it is

always in constant development. Ramfos explains in this way that Aristotle’s explanation

of time as a continuous now is connected with Nous (mind) and its ability of storing,

analyzing and combining the information received:

Knowledge is the ability of man to produce [the] future. The idea of producing [the] future is the idea of the rejection of instinct. For instinct is based on the past and it is the persistent return to the past. (Ramfos: 2008).

This idea of producing art through knowledge is a crucial point, for it has to begin by

considering what it is that we mean when we refer to ‘knowledge’ or ‘theory’ in art and

their relation with practice. Indeed, this research attempts to bridge the gap between theory

and practice in the way in which Laban and Aristotle define art as science, offering a re-

21

evaluation of Laban analysis and practice that provides a means to overcome the actors’

argument that rational explanation of movement leads to a static and formulaic outcome.

Laban is aware of that and starts his book explaining the difference:

The reader may be acquainted with the famous Chinese story of the centipede which, becoming immobilized, died of starvation because it was ordered always to move first with its seventy-eighth foot, and then to use its other legs in a particular numerical order. This story is often quoted as a warning against the presumption of attempting a rational explanation of movement. But, clearly, the unfortunate animal was the victim of purely mechanical regulations, and that has little to do with the free-flowing art of movement (Laban 1950: v).

Furthermore, the current research argues that the notion of science (episteme) within theatre

should be regarded as defined by Aristotle: Poetic Episteme is a know-how of the

productive capacity of the art of the theatre.6 Laban’s book Mastery of Movement on the

Stage (1950) coincides with this epistemological imperative both in its title and in its

resounding invitation for the actors to engage in a complex understanding of the body in

motion as a way to acquire essential movement skills. In order for Poetic Episteme to

evolve, a logical elaboration and the establishment of a specific order are demanded.

Ramfos explains: ‘Logic is not a rational process, but a mechanism of transformation’ (Sta

Akra 2008) whereas its order is not a technical process which moves in a certain direction.

On the contrary, logic moves in all directions and with multivalent, expansive

combinations. Each possible combination is structured by a certain order. These words [I

would suggest] echo Laban’s attitude that exhorts practitioners to adopt a rational approach

to movement training as a productive capacity: ‘a movement makes sense only if it

progresses organically and this means that phases which follow each other in a natural

succession must be chosen’ (Laban 1966: 4). In his preface mentioned above Laban refers

to the story of a centipede opening the rational explanation of movement and the principles

of movement.

Evans questions the efficacy of approaches towards the body’s ‘spontaneity’ and ‘play’

without training the ‘physical resources’ (Evans 2009: 85):

6 Episteme (science) has its root in the verb epistamai which means to have a deep understanding of something, to master it.

22

a function of movement training [for actors] is, through the efficient alignment of the actor’s physical resources, to enable and release the imagination and assist in the integration of their faculties ( Evans 2009: 85).

Evans highlights the demands that contemporary theatre places upon the actor to develop

the efficiency of the body in order to meet the standards of the profession (Evans 2009: 14-

16). Evans (2009) suggests that:

Thus the actor understandably desires a body ready for work, able to generate varied, multiple and fluid meanings; in effect a body which within the parameters of theatrical taste at any particular time, can perform as ‘natural’ and able to engage in an uninhibited manner with their environment [neutral body] so as to create the illusion of ‘naturalness’ (Evans 2009: 69).

The research demonstrates that Laban’s concepts provide the possibility for the body to be

neutral by “enriching” its effort ability, and natural by choosing the right order of actions

and the right effort qualities similar to those of everyday life. Likewise, Aristotle provides

the constituent parts of what he calls Mimesis, which is a likeness to everyday life.

Moreover, the main issue with regards to the natural/neutral body is that of indestructible

time, which Ramfos raises when he discusses presence on stage. Laban provides the

exercises in order to train the performer body’s kinesthetic experience here and now, a

notion which was first introduced by Aristotle. Laban and Aristotle agree what the actor

lives on the stage is his/her indestructible dynamics, here and now. Namely s/he lives

his/her existential energy, outside the context of the mundane, with all his/her existence.

The emphasis is placed on the experience of the present time through the praxis for both

actors and audience. It is a moment of catharsis, since there is the possibility of

experiencing in full the existence in an aesthetic time that produces pleasant emotions. This

is the Aristotelian idoni (pleasure), a state that Laban identified as important to his work but

was unable to concretise. Laban, as cited in Curl, says:

What does one describe as the view of the dancer? Above all his infinite reverence of all dancing and the dedication to the core of all being, the well-ordered movement, the dance. This dedication is so exclusive that everything else fades away… (Curl 1967: 16).

According to Foster, this view of Laban’s – also expressed in phrases such as ‘dance is a

divine power’- led Curl in his article Philosophical Foundation to argue for an intimate

connection between Laban and Plato and Pythagoreans, indicating that there is a kind of

mysticism in Laban’s work (Foster 1977: 47-50). In contrast to this perspective, I argue that

23

Laban, understood on Aristotelian grounds – and specifically, in light of Ramfos’s

proposals of mimesis in synthesis and performance (the idea of presence on stage as

indestructible time – a notion I shall argue is developed by Laban in his theory-practice of

effort) provides not a mystical but a logical rationale that validates scientifically Laban’s

approach to presence on stage.

Ramfos approach which is also discussed in DiLeo’s (2007) presentation with the title

Continuity and the Now in Aristotle’s Social Theory explains that with the concept of the

Nun: ‘Aristotle describes a type of human activity that is concerned with the effects of its

consequences on the achievement of human flourishing’ (DiLeo 2007). Also in his another

lecture, given in Chicago in 2007, with the title The Temporal Context of Aristotle's

Biological, Ethical and Political Thought DiLeo explains:

Aristotle’s general description of time and his references to issues related to it in reference to living things provide a backdrop for an understanding of human happiness and governance that exhorts us to attend seriously to the events, people and things that we encounter in all their particularity because our deliberations and choices do make a difference (DiLeo 2007).

This line of thought, which rejects mysticism, will allow us to reposition Laban in

symphony with Aristotle’s philosophy, providing scientific validity, and philosophical

foundation to Laban’s movement analysis7.

Both Aristotle and Laban place particular emphasis on another characteristic: synthesis in

art. They insist that there must exist a very certain way of order in speech and movement

similar to the way that dance art works. This order is necessary so that a certain meaning is

communicable to the audience, any change in the order affecting the final meaning: ‘the

most natural is the best organised’ Ramfos (2008, lecture, 31-01-08). In this way, order

leads to a synthesis which Aristotle denominates Praxis (which is perfect and important)

(Ramfos 1991: 151). According to Ramfos it is the actions of the character which

eventually reveal his/her character. Ramfos indicates Theophrastus’ book Characters

7 The very word metaphysics, ‘metaphysical’ came from Aristotle, although he did not attribute this meaning to his work. Nevertheless, Aristotle’s name has been associated with metaphysics for 2000 or so years!

24

(Theophrastus was Aristotle’s student) in order to give an example of what Aristotle means

by praxis.

he will remove a morsel of wool from his patron’s coat; or, if a speck of chaff has been laid on the other’s hair by the wind, he will pick it off;’ He will take the cushions from the slave in the theatre, and spread them on the seat with his own hands (Theophrastus 1902 in http://www.archive.org/stream/charactersoftheo00theouoft/charactersoftheo00theouoft_djvu.txt ).

The main goal of praxis is Peripeteia (anatrope, reversal). Thus, for Aristotle a praxis is

not informed by necessity (which would make it determined) but by probability, suggesting

some measure of unexpectedness and contingency, both in speech and movement.

Similarly, Laban gives the example of playing the role of Eve at the moment of picking the

apple implying that there are a lot of ways to execute that action. This action in terms of

necessity is that simply picks the apple; in probability, this action must be embodied in a

way that must be found from among a spectrum of different ways of picking the fruit. This

activity for the actor is not a trick in order to charm the spectators, it is an artistic activity.

Actually, what happens in reality is a vast number of combinations of picking an apple.

Laban is in agreement with Aristotle when he declares that asymmetry is more exciting and

interesting than symmetry.

Following this line of thought, praxis must be structured in contra-distinction to the

conventional approach to acting that until recently calls for ‘natural’ action. What I mean

with ‘natural action’ is the action that stems of necessity and not probability. Usually that

action is produced – not from carefully chosen action – but from the spontaneous reaction

of the actor to given circumstances. Aristotle stands opposed to this type of ‘naturalism’, in

the sense, for three reasons: first because it is produced by spontaneity that relies on a non –

artistic capacity second it relies on psychological implication and thirdly, it does not

produce a new reality. What is proposed by Aristotle as an alternative is that the structure of

an action must not be spontaneous but ‘logical’ – for the actor, understanding the logic of

action is the main requirement. This differentiation is important as Praxis is normally

translated in English generally as action, a term which does not allow for a more refined

understanding of the concept.

What this research proposes then, is a new way of approaching movement training for

actors in the 21st Century, following Aristotle and Laban, which significantly avoids

http://www.archive.org/stream/charactersoftheo00theouoft/charactersoftheo00theouoft_djvu.txthttp://www.archive.org/stream/charactersoftheo00theouoft/charactersoftheo00theouoft_djvu.txt

25

psychological implications and regards the art of acting as inextricable from the art of

dancing: namely, requiring strict precision and clarity of performance. The argument rests

on the suggestion that by better understanding the meaning of action, as a logical form, we

can then grasp what is at stake for Laban. What is essential to this proposal is the idea of

creating action by probability – that is to say, according to a logical process – has to be

considered within the movement training for classical acting. Therefore, the preparation of

the actor, breaks with the question ‘what if I lived in the ascribed circumstances’. Rather,

the question is now: ‘what if I structure a completely new character in specific

circumstances as a result of the combination of body’s actions, including voice’. In other

words, the logical structure of action results in terms of the development and applications of

the principles of a poetic science. This discussion will continue in detail in chapter two.

This research also responds to Evan’s assertion that movement training must ‘enable and

release the imagination’ (Evans, 2009: 85). This statement requires a careful consideration

of the concept of imagination because, as Evans points out, actors are reluctant to

rationalize their approach to movement. In terms of this research, Plato and Aristotle

consider imagination in a double sense. First, imagination is something which has

metaphysical connotations. Plato believes that the soul exists in the upper world and that in

the process of birth man depresses the Mnemes (memories) of this upper world. Through

knowledge we can recall those memories, which he calls anamneses (recollections). This

recollection is phantasia, roughly translated as imagination. On the other hand, Aristotle

suggests that memories are only stored depictions from our experiences in the world, which

become mnemes (memories). Laban’s approach to imagination shares the same essence as

that of as Aristotle. This will be further elaborated in Chapter 2. For Ramfos ‘Fantasia

(imagination) is an intellectual activity because if it was a psychic phenomenon it would be

a delirium’ and that fantasia is of ‘infinite consequences’ (Ramfos 2008). So, what

precisely do we mean when we say that an actor must train his/her imagination? What

elements come into this process? How is it connected to text work? What kind of

imagination can we expand and how? Therefore, are we referring to fantasia in the way that

Aristotle suggests or to the psychological understanding of the notion of imagination

embedded in the philosophy of 19th AD?

Another issue that Evans raises in his critique of Laban’s work is that of the expressive

movement:

26

Though Laban perceived the value of an integrated and holistic approach to posture and movement, he preferred to focus his energies and attentions on the expressive functions of movement rather than on developing a vision of the interaction between mind and body, which might allow for the successful re-education of inefficient body use (Evans 2009: 34).

This statement has some validity, of course. Due to a misreading of Platonic philosophy,

and to the fact that the heritage of Laban studies has been tainted with overly expressionistic

overtones, something completely contradictory, Laban’s work has been neglected in

contemporary theatre practice in acting and is seen as outdated in part due to what Evans

sees as a lack of ‘a vision of the interaction of body and mind’. Evans seems, however,

unaware of Laban’s own statement which would suggest that he was in fact well aware of

the problem:

It is the happy combination of mind and body developing alongside each other, without inhibition of the one or over-development of the other, for which the teacher should work (Laban 1948: 22).

Nevertheless, this study will propose a methodology that will explicitly address Evan’s

statement of the need to review Laban’s work and demonstrate the manner in which it can

lead to the interaction of ‘the body and the mind’ in ways that will allow for the “successful

education of inefficient body use” (Evans 2009: 34). What the research proposes is a

reevaluation of Laban’s theory and practice –taking on board the fact that Laban offered no

specific training for actors, but provided fundamental principles theoretically and

practically. I will propose movement training for actors in structuring, rehearsing and

performing, applicable to multiple theatrical approaches (classical drama, performance,

devising theatre). The research fills a current gap in the provision of a systematic method of

movement training that treats the body as an entity with all its aspects (emotional, physical,

logical, sexual etc) in order to meet the demands made upon the contemporary acting body.

1.2 The Concept of Mimesis in Philosophy

In order for this research to support its argument – namely, that there is a direct connection

between Laban and Aristotle – an investigation needs to be carried out regarding the

concept of mimesis in the theatre. What is at stake here is an understanding of mimesis in

terms of a poetic science and specifically in terms of how one understands key concepts

such as action and reversal. Aristotle provides the first attempt to explain, beyond Plato, the

phenomenon in his book the Poetics. A vast number of translations and interpretations have

27

been written on Poetics. However, as I have already said, the present research will focus on

contemporary Greek philosopher Stelios Ramfos’s review of the concept of Mimesis in his

book Mimesis against Form (1991). The work has remained unequalled in its re-reading of

Plato and Aristotle (Bakounakis 1996). Mimesis against Form, lays the foundations for a

subsequent publication Fate and Ambiguity in Oedipus the King (2004), where the

discussion of mimesis is extended to consider narrative structures in Ancient Greek tragedy.

In Mimesis against Form (1991), Ramfos attempts a deuteron plous – a ‘second sailing’ of

the notion of mimesis from Plato and Aristotle, as a means of redefining and clarifying the

concept.

The notion of mimesis is usually translated as representation or imitation. This is the result

of the mistranslation of the term into Latin by writers who transferred the notion mimesis

into imitatio. Ramfos explains that neither Plato nor Aristotle refer to representation or

imitation, which is an exoteric (external) form, a scheme, but to a mimesis, which is the

creation of a world that has its own life.

In mimesis, the work of art has an aggregate existence, and its form is its own life, while in representation it occurs exactly in the opposite manner; it transforms its object into something overtly conceivable, and the sense of its reality is its schematic form (Ramfos 1991: 48).

Ramfos defined the Greek word ζώον (/zoon/, a living thing) as a bodily, constant presence,

living in a different time, which he calls indestructible time. This is not historical time (an

art work lasting centuries). It is the way of living the present time which Aristotle calls Nun

(now) – for instance, it is the kind of the time we live in moments of ‘bliss’ (like love,

extreme passion, ecstasies, for example) when we habituate a different time and not the

‘physical time’. The research focuses on Ramfos interpretation and comments on Aristotle’s

mimesis, because this analysis is closer, or so I argue, to what theatre means for Laban.

Laban seems to make the same distinction between representation and mimesis as Ramfos

does when he writes in The Mastery of Movement on Stage:

On the whole it can be said that these two contrasting viewpoints apply movement to two different aims: on the one hand, to the representation of the more external features of life, and on the other, to the mirroring of the hidden processes of the inner being (Laban 1950: 7).

Moreover Ramfos expresses a similar viewpoint to Laban when he states that ‘we expect

affirmation of life from mimesis, not its reflected image (Ramfos 2004: 8). Laban at another

28

point says that dramatic actions ‘are certainly not just imitations or representations of the

ordinary actions of everyday life’ (Laban 1950: 97).

This section of the chapter traces the concept of mimesis in philosophy from Plato up to the

present in an attempt to clarify the concept not for the purpose of resolving a philosophical

dispute, but in order to provide a philosophical basis for the repositioning of Laban away

from Platonic assumptions. Through the use of the original sources in Greek, the first

section of this introduction examines the introduction of the notion of mimesis as firstly

defined by Plato in Republic (1989), and its reexamination of it in his dialogue Phaedrus,

by explicating what Plato means and what he considers as a good mimesis.

The second section focuses on the Aristotelian approach of mimesis, by contrasting and

comparing it to Plato’s original proposal.

The third section traces the evolution of the concept after Aristotle, introducing the most

important references from philosophers as Plotinus, Lucian, Proclus, up to the translation of

the word from Latin writers into imitatio. This general survey will set the ground to

introduce Ramfos’s contemporary applications of the concept, whereby he proposes a new

reading of Plato and Aristotle as a means to differentiate representation from mimesis.

1.2.1 Plato

The notion of mimesis is one of the most fundamental issues in the history of philosophy.

The notion has its roots in Plato. Plato opens up the debate in his book Cratylus; while

examining the issue of language, he begins also to offer a critique of representational arts

due to their use of likeness. Halliwell explains what likeness is for Plato:

[Plato] Using ‘likeness’ a defining property of all mimesis, these [representational] arts ‘show’ (deloun) and ‘signify’ (semainein) a sensory perceptible world, but they do not address the ‘essence’, the true reality, of things, in the way that language –as- naming supposedly does (Halliwell 2002: 44).

For Plato, mimesis has two dimensions: First, mimesis as a mirroring of reality, and second,

mimesis as the process of creating a world per se or forms, modeled on the ‘upper world’

the world of ideas (Beardsley 1966: 36). As it is well-known Plato attacks the art of poetics

and poets (artists generally) in his tenth book of Republic. For Plato the artist has to possess

a total knowledge of the world in order to be able to mimesthai (to make a faithful copy of)

29

it. However, this proves impossible as, according to Plato, this knowledge is reserved to

God alone. Therefore, for Plato, mimetes’ action is one of pretense and deceit and argues

that artists mimountai (present) external forms, as the work engages in appearances and not

in truth. On this basis for Plato, the artist must be construed as a forger and not an inspired

creator (Plato 1989: 655).

Furthermore, in Apology Socrates comments that he has met some great poets none of

whom were able to explain ‘what they were saying’ and ‘what they meant’ by their works,

although sometimes they say ‘many fine things’ (Halliwell 2002: 39). Thus, poets create

their works through inspiration, and the ‘powerful emotions’ which they undoubtedly evoke

but not through the pursuit of knowledge, (Ion 535). These emotions with no recourse to

knowledge are dangerous for society.

Soc: Well Ion, and are we say of a man who at a sacrifice or festival, when he is dressed in holiday attire and has golden crowns upon his head, of which nobody has robbed him, appears sweeping or panic- stricken in the presence of more than twenty thousand friendly faces, when there is no one despoiling or wronging him- is he in his right mind or is he not? Ion: No indeed, Socrates, I must say that, strictly speaking, he is not in his right mind. Soc: And are you aware that you produce similar effects on most spectators? (Plato, http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/ion.html)

Inspiration is connected with imagination and for Plato this connection is opposed to the

urge for the knowledge of truth. Thus, such a dichotomy between knowledge and

imagination is a key issue, since Plato believes that there is no imagination but only

memories of the previous life. The soul pre-exists in the upper world and has the ability to

see the ideal forms (of beauty) which he calls absolute beauty. Beauty is absolute because it

is not seen by the eyes (partial grasping) but by the mind. He believes that ‘in the process of

birth, the soul which beholds the Ideal Forms from all the qualities, directly represses this

memory’ (Beardsley 1966: 40).

However, he states that we have the ability to recall this memory, for example at the

moment of artistic inspiration. However, artists must have ‘a knowledge of the nature,

rather than a knowledge of the correctness of the copy and a knowledge of the excellence

with which the copy is executed’ (Beardsley 1966: 46). Plato describes in the tenth book of

the Republic how every quality has a corresponding Ideal Form. Forms that try to

mimethoun Ideal Forms are only copies. These forms can mimountai the Ideal Form but

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/ion.html

30

never perfectly. Thus, a copy is never as good as its model because it is not an exact

reproduction. Plato gives an example of the Form of an object, choosing to examine a bed.

This can be described as existing on three levels: First: The Ideal Form, made by God;

(Plato says: ‘one existing in nature; which is made by God, as I think that we may say’. For

Plato Nature means the primary, the basic principle, the stable (Plato 1989: 654). The

second level is: The object produced by a carpenter, the final level is the copy of a bed

made by a painter. The carpenter's bed is inferior to the Ideal Form, and the painter's bed is

inferior to that of the carpenter's. Thus, the painter's bed is more inferior to the Ideal Form

than the carpenter's bed (Sheppard 1987: 5). For Plato, art is inferior to the Ideal Forms and

their true reality. Plato says that all mimetic arts “deloun” show and “semainein” signify to

the world of senses and the idea of a sensory reality and do not show the essence (ousia) of

the things which is the absolute truth of their being (Halliwell 2002: 44). According to

Plato, the tangible world has an ontological dependence upon the world of ideal forms of

which they are a mere reflection. Art mimetai these reflections, and as a consequence its

products are the mimesis of a mimesis (During 1991: 274).

However in his book Sophist Plato distinguishes two ways of seeing mimesis; this imitative

art has to adhere to one of the following two criteria in order to succeed in its mimesis:

firstly, the mimetes may mimetai exactly the model, its measurements, proportions and

colors, and thus create a realistic likeness, an eidolon (mirroring). Secondly, the mimetes

may copy the way the object looks as seen from a specific point of view. On this occasion

he creates an apparent likeness, a phantasma (Beardsley 1966: 36).

Plato elaborates the concept of mimesis in his later book Phaedrus. In this writing, mimetic

creation is elevated to a metaphysical level and the artist achieves the status of a

philosopher. He proposes that true art must overcome the boundaries of this world and unite

with the absolute epekeina, the attainment of absolute understanding of all beings, and it is

the philosopher's objective to attain absolute truth; the ‘philosopher stands between

knowledge and ignorance, a fact that creates desire for true wisdom: the man who is not a

philosopher lives in ignorance’ (Nikoloudi 1993: 30). This philosopher-artist is, according

to Plato, a Demiourgos (Creator), a concept elaborated in Timeaus. A Demiourgos creates a

world per se which has order, harmony, meter and precision and his works should be based

on logical elaboration. The Demiourgos follows a procedure bound by certain rules: the true

creator acts on purpose and he is intent on a constructive plan. His action is the exact

31

opposite of accident. He seeks to give form to his creation following his specific vision or

pattern. He collects and assembles already existing material. The creation depends on the

artist's ability to assemble and harmonize the constituent parts. In this way order is imposed

on the creation and it becomes a world per se (Plato 1995: 149).The artist should aspire to

be a Demiourgos and not a mere mimetes of the real world. For Plato (1995) the artist seems

to be transformed into Demiourgos because both share the same characteristics and follows

the same procedure. He believes tekhnê is a high constructive ability that requires high

skills in order to reach to a certain goal.

1.2.2 Aristotle

Aristotle opposed the Platonic view that truth is derived from the World of Ideas. Aristotle

suggests that knowledge should be based on what is already known and generally accepted.

His process of reasoning generally followed three stages: firstly he defined what was

already known about a particular subject matter; secondly he discussed the difficulties

involved by such knowledge, reviewing the generally accepted views on the subject and the

suggestions of preceding writers. Finally he presented his own arguments and conclusions.

Aristotle’s main philosophy is that ‘the upper-world (the world of the stars) is unalterable,

while the world under the moon (the Earth) is always in motion and change. The dominant

process of the latter world is this natural order: ‘Birth-Inception-Completion-Decline-

Wear’ (Düring 1991: 78). Every living being has to realize its potential following this

natural process. For Aristotle, ‘completion is the moment of biological culmination’, which

he calls entelecheia (entelechy) (Düring 1991: 78).

Aristotle’s Poetics seems to be written as an answer to Plato’s words in the tenth book of

Republic:

And we may further grant to those of her defenders who are lovers of poetry and yet not poets the permission to speak in prose on her behalf; let them show not only that she is pleasant but also useful to States and to human life, and we will listen in a kindly spirit; for if this can be proved we shall be gainers (Plato 1989: 679).

In Poetics Aristotle tried to refute Plato's view of mimetic arts using in his discussion some

of Plato’s own ideas (Düring 1991: 267). Like Plato, Aristotle defines art as mimesis.

However, Aristotle adapted Platonic rules in order to define whom he considers an artist. In

order to do this, he consequently introduced the concept of tekhnê as a productive capacity

32

springing from an understanding of its intrinsic rationale. Aristotle in his book

Nicomachean Ethics states:

Art is identical with a state of capacity to make, involving a true course of reasoning. All art is concerned with coming into being, i.e., with contriving and considering how something may come into being which is capable of either being or not being, and whose origin is in the maker and not in the thing made. (Aristotle 1993: 77)

Both agree that artists must be well educated as a means to acquire technical skills in order

to produce tekhnê. This process is one based on scientific knowledge. Aristotle believed that

man has the ability to apprehend through his Nous, which is an infallible mental faculty, the

divine element within human beings. Aristotle refutes Plato’s idea that men have memories

of the upper world when they are born. Knowledge is acquired through the senses which

form the first basic impressions, and which are stored in memory as depictions because

‘from the repetition of the depictions general notions are derived’ (Düring 1991: 79). These

general notions are the subjects of the knowledge. For Aristotle ‘this knowledge is potential

knowledge, since man may know something as a, but only theoretically. However, when

man encounters a then his knowledge is activated and this is always objective knowledge’

(Düring 1991: 80). For Aristotle that objective knowledge is science. Sikoutris (1995)

explains:

Science examines a question in its universal, tries to find and to control general rules, which regulate each phenomenon. The recovery of the general rules is achieved through logical method and the application of absolute logical patterns (Sikoutris 1995: 23)

In Posterior Analytics Aristotle defines what is episteme (science):

(1) S knows that [Pi] is the explanation of P, and

S knows that P cannot be otherwise (Murat, 1998, p. 14)

Murat (1998) later on says that:

S syllogistically derives P from a [Pi] such that

(1) S knows that [Pi] are true,

(2) S knows that [Pi] are principles, and

33

(3) S knows that [Pi] contains the appropriate middle terms that reveal the

reason why of P. (P: a certain principle, S: the subject who has the nous of P)

(Murat, 1998, p. 22).

Aristotle then states that in order to have the explanation of P it is adequate to have the

appropriate demonstration of P through a deductive process, which he calls scientific

syllogism. The premises that are true, primitive and immediate, derive the episteme of P

syllogistically, "better known than, prior to, and explanatory of their conclusion" (Murat,

1998, p. 15). These premises must have the first principles as their starting point. Aristotle

describes the process of reaching these first principles:

[1] S noei (knows) that P---P is true

[2] S epistatai (understands) that P----P is true (p. 10).

Aristotle did not agree with the notion that phenomena are always true, but he argued that in

order to arrive at scientific knowledge, an explanation is required to establish that

phenomena are natural consequences of the principles (Murat 1998: 25).

Aristotle distinguishes three types of science: Theoretical Sciences, which try to find out

why something is what it is. Their starting point is that things exist and they are concerned

with the qualities of the things, either trying to declare what the scientist has observed, or

seeking theoretical argumentation to clarify the issues. In every case their priority is the

elucidation and clarification of things (Düring 1991: 203); Practical Sciences, which are

concerned with the knowledge of moral rules. These sciences examine the practices of

human behavior in society and try to define which actions are correct and what is the perfect

(aristos) moral life. According to Aristotle human beings act with purpose and ‘this purpose

is twofold: the purpose that is the ultimate goal of people and the purpose that serves as a

means for the attainment of a higher goal’, for instance, a gymnastic exercise is the purpose

of Gymnastics, ‘which is simultaneously a medium for the acquisition of good health’;

Poetic sciences which are the ‘know how’ in all professions that have to do with productive

creation. This productive creation is completed in the product and not in the producer. What

are examined are only the product and the way of its production (Nikoloudi, 1993: 32).

Tekhnê belongs to Poetic sciences since for ancient Greeks tekhnê is not artistic creation,

but technical skill. It has to do with certain dexterities, which bear scientific validity and are

based on knowledge (Ramfos 1993: 43).

34

Aristotle believed that if an artist wishes to create a work of art, he should collect all

available material on the subject and present them in a specific form. Thus, he starts from

his general procedure when he examines a phenomenon; he first examines the reasons that

produce a result. However, Aristotle considered that it was more important to conceive a

specific form than to actually create it. Aristotle was mainly concerned with the universal

and he believed that in art the Universal is the act of becoming and the productive process

that transubstantiates the informal into formal (Sikoutris 1995: 59). Aristotelian tekhnê,

must be understood as based solidly on reason and therefore, it is necessary to possess

knowledge of the use of its materials (Ramfos 1993: 46) According to Aristotle, the artist

does not act through his uncontrolled inspiration, or esoteric impulse. On the contrary, the

artist introduces order and objective laws, creating a world per se (Sikoutris 1995: 67).

Aristotle considered that a Demiourgos is interested in the scientific approach to artistic

creation through a systematic explanation. However, when he referred to artistic creation,

he said that there are two kinds of creators, the genius and the madman. He comments:

This is why the art of poetry belongs to people who are naturally gifted (genius) or mad; of these, the former are adaptable, and the latter are not in their right mind (Aristotle 1996: 28).

However, Aristotle's thesis is not absolute and he accepts that sometimes tekhnê is the work

of a madman. Plato says that poets are possessed by divine fury, something that Aristotle

takes under consideration. However, since Aristotle believed that an uneducated person

could not become a great artist and since art is a science, he does not conclude this further

in Poetics (Sikoutris 1991: 25). He argued that geniuses have creative imagination and they

distance themselves from the characters they present, while madmen are in ecstasy and in a

condition of hysteria. Therefore, they become identified with the characters they present.

According to Aristotle, a genius is gifted by nature and approaches art scientifically, while a

madman has an extremely sensitive nervous system and he experiences emotions intensely.

Therefore he devours his/her logic and gets identified with the character he/she presents.

It is quite evident that in Poetics Aristotle is concerned only with genius, which he

considers not a mere artist but a Demiourgos. (Sikoutris 1995: 144) For Aristotle

Demiourgos does not express his own emotions and feelings; namely his concern is the

presentation of circumstances that are familiar to the human soul and therefore have

objective and universal significance. Kosman (1992) in his article Acting: Drama as the

35

Mimesis of Praxis asserts that for Aristotle ‘mimesis and mimeisthai can clearly bear the

meaning of a nonfictional impersonation, as well as the more standard sense of artistic

impersonation’ (Kosman 1992: 61). His work is successful when it meets a certain degree

of objectivity and leads the spectators' interest in the content of the work of art and not in its

producer (Sikoutris 1995: 110). According to Aristotle, this objectivity that coincides with

the idea of the universal should be the main concern of Demiourgos because ‘this and only

this can be the subject of scientific approach’ (Sikoutris 1995: 111)

Sikoutris in his commentary on the Poetics argues that mimesis is the presentation of reality

through the senses. In a sense, mimesis is an inherent characteristic of human nature;

therefore it has its roots in the impulses of the human soul. However, it does not work in an

arbitrary manner, but follows certain rules and methods consciously. It selects its object and

then subjects it to logical elaboration in order to create a work of art that is whole and

complete (Sikoutris 1995: 53). Therefore the object of art is becoming and making not in an

arbitrary way, but through probability or necessity. (Dromazos 1982: 58) The artist presents

the things in three ways: ‘things as they were or are, things as they are said or thought to be,

or things as they ought to be’ (Sikoutris 1995: 4). According to During this means that the

artist has three sources from which to derive his material: from reality, from tradition and

from his own point of view (During 1991: 294).

In Politics Aristotle used the word likeness in order to cover all aspects of mimesis. He

maintained that the notion likeness describes the artist's ability to present the real world

through empirical observation. In Physics Aristotle explains the notion of likeness stating

that tekhnê is a mimesis of nature. The artist presents the real world, but he/she does not

describe external reality in a mechanistic way but he/she only depicts human convention.

The artist does not merely recreate the events, but creates them in a way that is defined by

the universal. (Ramfos 1993: 48) The artist does not see reality as it is, but as something

that is formulated through logical elaboration. For Aristotle the artist seeks poetic truth,

which is devoid of trivialities, and is interested only in the universals (katholou). What is

presented then, is not simply ‘reality’ but as Sikoutris points out ‘the important reality’

(Sikoutris 1995: 59).

1.2.3 Post-Aristotelian approaches to mimesis

After Aristotle, Stoic philosophers developed a great interest in mimesis, and indeed their

basic dogma was that wisdom is a ‘mimema and apeikonisma of physein’ (nature). They

36

use the word mimesis in their original texts in the same way Plato and Aristotle did. For

them (for example, Posidonius and Strabo, who wrote expressly about mimesis) mimesis has

as its subject matter only “important truths” (Strabo) and “the truth of contemplation of the

divine” (Posidonius) (Halliwell 2002: 268-269). For Epicurean philosophers, the word still

remains mimesis, and is regarded as a false way of seeing world, and therefore deleterious

for education (olethrion muthon delear). (Halliwell 2002: 277). Both philosophical schools

treat mimesis from a Platonic point of view.

Lucian (Greek philosopher who was born about 120 AD) was influenced by his era’s return

to Classical Greece. In his work Peri Orchiseos he wrote an encomiastic treatise, set in the

frame of a dialogue. He uses the word mimesis and examines the art of dance accepting both

Platonic and Aristotlean approaches. He defends the “mimetic dance” which he calls it

mimetike episteme (mimetic science). (Lucian 1994: 181)

During the Roman Empire the Latin writers translated the word mimesis as: imitatio. In that

sense the notion of mimesis is transformed into imitation of role models – a shift in meaning

that had profound consequences on the history of art Western in to the 17th and 18th

Century. At that time art masterpieces from the past became the ideal models for classical

artists. The imitation of role models is not exactly a copy of artworks of the past but the way

of seeing them as “guidance” for ‘something new out of old traditions. For nature is too

“raw” and “wild” to be a model. (Potolsky 2006: 50) This means that the artist must ‘follow

the best human role models and imitating trusted conventions’ (Potolsky 2006: 51).

Important accounts for the notion of imitatio are extracted by the orator Horace, who was

influenced by the Greek poet Pindar, who explains imitatio as transformation of the model

which “demands all the imitator’s literary skill and judgment” (Potolsky 2006: 56). Like

Horace, the Greek orator Dionysius of Halicarnassus (first century BCE) and Latin orator

Quintilian (second century BCE) argue that imitatio is closer to emulation than to copying

(Potolsky 2006: 56).

Mimesis is also the main subject of On the Sublime attributed to Longinus (second century

BCE). Mimesis is “imagination drawn from the truth” and has nature as its model. The

quality of the sublime is something which is created when human thought meets reality.

‘The sublime, whenever it occurs, is like a force of nature rather than a product of skill, it is

destined to please all men, everywhere and at all times’ (Jasper